"M4A2 Sherman Sandy - Zvezda 1:100 / 15mm" Topic

Good job!

Main page
coolminiornot.com/406310

Amicalement
Armand

How does the driver see to steer?

I guess the commander screams directions ?/!

Nice work though! ;p

Glad you like it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Very nice!

Response:
The driver looks through a periscope on the drivers
hatch which is NOT covered with sandbags or drives
with his head out of the hatch.
Very nice conversion with the green stuff well done!

I'm kind of wondering who's "Sandy" this model proposes to show?

It might be suggested as a British tank. I don't know if the Brits use the name "Sandy" much, but giving tanks individual names was quite common (typically having all tanks in a company starting with the same letter). And I don't know if the Brits used sandbags like this. I do know they operated M4A2 76's in Italy. But to my understanding they did not mount muzzle breaks.

The Soviets almost never named individual tanks, nor would "Sandy" be a name a Russian or other Soviet should typically be expected to chose. I've never seen pics of a Soviet tank with sandbags (bedsprings or other wire-based applique's being far more popular in the Red Army).

"Sandy" is also not a French name. And the French were rather inclined to make their national and unit symbols visible on the sides of their tanks. As I have never seen any images of a French tank with sandbags, I can not suggest if they would have taken care to make the national and unit symbols visible in a sandbagged environment.

Is it possible this is intended to be a Free Polish army vehicle? Again, there are questions of the name "Sandy", sandbagging, and muzzle break. But I don't know much about the specifics of Polish armor in ETO.

That pretty much covers all operators of the M4A2 76mm tank. USMC never operated it (only 75mm M4A2s), and of course never operated any tanks in ETO (as the photo clearly implies) during WW2.

So … I'm stumped. A Sherman M4A2 (which no US Army unit ever used overseas), called "Sandy". I just can't figure out which army it is modelling ….

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

To Mark 1 so now that you've impressed everyone on the planet with your detailed knowledge of where, when and by who each and everyone of the fifty thousand something Shermans in WWII was used … LIGHTEN UP! The guy crafted a brilliant and beautiful model which took a lot more talent than your trashing it did. Good Grief Charlie Brown! Beautiful piece of work!

My goodness Lee, perhaps you might consider switching to decaf.

I didn't trash anything. I didn't offer a single word of criticism.

Perhaps you prefer discussion forums were the only acceptable reply is unquestioning praise and piling on of accolades. If so, I am sorry to disappoint you. But I like to learn stuff. So I often engage in discussions of the history of the events, weapons and armies around which the miniatures hobby revolves.

I very clearly stated that I was stumped by the target of this model. I highlighted the possibilities as I saw them, my analysis of each of the possibilities, and even the gaps in my own knowledge. Sometimes people on forums like this (particularly this forum!) actually fill in those gaps for me, when I provide some of my own analysis and raise the questions I don't know how to answer.

I suppose it is possible that this modeller might not know that he built a model of a tank that was never used by the US Army. If I were him, I would be appreciative if someone pointed that out to me before I built more of them. I have had people point out to me the errors in my army organizations before. I never barked or growled over it, nor would I expect others to bark or growl on my behalf.

But I did not presume that he lacked knowledge or historical interest. This is not a matter of a minor oversight. Not a question of knowing exactly "when and by who each and everyone of the fifty thousand something Shermans in WWII was used". Nor is it a question of rivet-counting, of criticizing a modeller who mistook which model he was building. The US Army only operated 3 sub-models of the Sherman. The author of this post knew enough to identify this vehicle correctly, and identified it as one of the sub-models that the US Army did not operate. Excuse me if I concluded, from his care in identifying the sub-model, that he knew the implications of that.

So Good Grief yourself. LIGHTEN UP!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I seem to recall that the US army used the M4A2 model for their DD tanks for the Normandy Invasion. If so this would contradict your "no US Army unit ever operated overseas". My bad thought Normandy was in Europe.

I seem to recall that the US army used the M4A2 model for their DD tanks for the Normandy Invasion.

I do not believe you recall correctly. But I am willing to be convinced, if you have some further information to share.

My understanding is that all US Army DD conversions were done on M4A1s.

The initial suggestion was to use the latest / newest technology of Sherman available for DDs. In January 1944 a request was made for the first 160 production units of the M4A1(76mm) production, for DD conversion for D-Day.

However this request was rejected, as all of the initial production M4A1(76) were already spoken for. (Oddly enough the first 100, shipped to the UK, were left behind on D-Day because the units they were offered to didn't want them.)

Consequently 350 available M4A1(75mm) were used. Pardon me for being explicit here, but in case some of our forum members do not know, the M4A1 was the only Sherman variant with a cast hull. The edges of the hull appear rounded. All other variants had welded hulls, with clear sharp edges.

It appears most or all of the M4A1s used for the DD conversions were Pressed Steel Car late-1943 production vehicles. These vehicles had the rather distinctive combination of additional characteristics of a raised turret bustle, cast-in hull side re-enforcing plates (vs. welded-on applique plates), and enlarged driver and co-driver hatches.

Here is a pic of the procurement order for the 350 tanks to be converted as DDs. It clearly identifies them as M4A1s.

This picture is of a D-day DD Sherman raised from the seabed off of Normandie, and now on display at Torcross, England. It is clearly an M4A1.

This picture is of a D-Day DD Sherman raised from the seabed, and now on display at Port-en-Bessin, France. It is clearly an M4A1.

(Pictures from this excellent site with details of the various Sherman sub-models and even the "minutia": link )

Three US Army independent tank battalions operated DD Shermans on D-Day: the 70th, 741st, and 743rd. I have found several pictures of US Army DD Shermans in action in the days and weeks following D-Day. All that I have found so far are M4A1s. But these pics do not identify the specific units that operated the tanks. I have later-war pictures of 75mm Shermans which clearly identify them as being operated by the 70th Tank Battalion. They all show M4A1s. But I have not found any pics of 75mm Shermans identified as being operated by the 741st and 743rd, despite my searching.

So after all of that, with both the evidence and the gaps in my research, I'm reasonably confident that US Army DDs were all M4A1s.

But please believe that I have exactly NO sarcastic, satirical, or otherwise hostile intent, explicit or implied, when I say that if you have information about M4A2s in US Army service in ETO, I'd love to see it.

I have no interest in proving a pre-conceived position. My interest is in learning and understanding what actually happened. It seems that so many people these days can't even believe that not all writing or discourse is partisan argumentation. But there's nothing wrong, in my world view, with learning something new every day. And doing it happily.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

What an incredible model and paint job. The effort that has gone into making this just blows me away.

TBH, not too concerned if it's accurate or not – I just think it looks really cool.

@ MK 1 – As a Brit I've dated many a Sandy over the years. We shorten Sandra (a popular name here) to Sandy.

Furgie

Sandy – sandbags?

In Scotland, 'Sandy' is also a common nickname for a man called 'Alexander'…